US Economy grows at fastest rate since 1984!!

[Patrick Degan]

SDI = Maginot Line Mk II.

[Darth Wong]

SDI = Maginot Line Mk II.

I think you could argue that it's even worse. At least the Maginot Line would have been a bitch to confront head-on. This one can be effortlessly overwhelmed by simply attacking with a reasonably large volley, even if everything works exactly as advertised.

[MKSheppard]

I think you could argue that it's even worse. At least the Maginot Line would have been a bitch to confront head-on. This one can be effortlessly overwhelmed by simply attacking with a reasonably large volley, even if everything works exactly as advertised.

Except a very large percentage of said volley won't be getting thruough.

SDI would have thrown a lot of uncertainity into nuclear war planning.

[MKSheppard]

Or at the very least, stop trying really obvious lies like claiming that Moscow had a fully operation SDI system.

Oh but they did. See, the ABM treaty allowed both sides to keep one
operational ABM system, the russians put theirs around moscow, and
never closed it down.

[MKSheppard]

As for it being unworkable, some of the more exotic systems such as
space based lasers are only now approaching fruition after decades and
untold billions of R&D, and are very close to becoming battlefield weapons.

However, SDI wasn't all exotic laser based bomb pumped X-Ray lasers;
there was also a proposal to put lots of small interceptor vehicles into orbit
in constellations called Brilliant Pebbles.

[Vympel]

Except a very large percentage of said volley won't be getting thruough.

SDI would have thrown a lot of uncertainity into nuclear war planning.

Depends on the volley. In this situation the defender is at a complete disadvantage- it's far easier to design an ICBM that can evade such a convoluted defense than it is to design a 'hit-to-kill' interceptor to strike the warhead dead on.

Can someone explain the logic of NMD to me again? Defense against who?

[MKSheppard]

Depends on the volley. In this situation the defender is at a complete disadvantage- it's far easier to design an ICBM that can evade such a convoluted defense than it is to design a 'hit-to-kill' interceptor to strike the warhead dead on.

Uhm, how are you going to make an ICBM to be able to evade an
interceptor vehicle that is much smaller and more manuverable
than it could ever be?

Can someone explain the logic of NMD to me again? Defense against who?

The Chinese, who only have 30 warheads

[MKSheppard]

The Chinese, who only have 30 warheads

In a way, NMD effectively removes the chinese threat of "You don't
care about taiwan as much as you care about Los Angeles"

[Patrick Degan]

I think you could argue that it's even worse. At least the Maginot Line would have been a bitch to confront head-on. This one can be effortlessly overwhelmed by simply attacking with a reasonably large volley, even if everything works exactly as advertised.

Except a very large percentage of said volley won't be getting thruough.

Keep telling yourself that.

SDI would have thrown a lot of uncertainity into nuclear war planning.

Yes. Mainly of the "what will the enemy throw at us to overwhelm or circumvent the system" variety.

[Vympel]

Uhm, how are you going to make an ICBM to be able to evade an
interceptor vehicle that is much smaller and more manuverable
than it could ever be?

Because the interceptor targets the warhead, not the ICBM. The 7th Topol-M test-launch, back in 1999, saw the warhead peform an antimissile maneuver for the first time. Some estimates say that it has more decoys and penetration aids than the far more massive Peacekeeper. It's throw-weight is suspicioulsly large for a mere 1-warhead weapon.

The Chinese, who only have 30 warheads

Won't last long- when the DF-5s are replaced by DF-31s and DF-41s, it'll take far less than a hundred, MIRVd, to re-establish China's minimum deterrent force.

[MKSheppard]

Keep telling yourself that.

Even if SDI is just 50% effective on an all out volley,
that's half of a nuclear strike plan that won't be getting through.

You are no longer assured of target destruction in 30 minutes, which
really throws a huge kink into warplanning.

Yes. Mainly of the "what will the enemy throw at us to overwhelm or circumvent the system" variety.

Oh yes! Lets polish our missile bodies to a shiny mirrory polish so that they'll
reflect space based lasers! Or the fun fact that having to put counter
measures onto what was a previously uninterceptable system will reduce
the warhead throw weight.

NMD isn't just interceptors sitting in some icy base in Alaska, it's
also an orbiting Boeing 747 outfitted with a laser to shoot down
missiles in their boost phase over the bad guy's territory.

Lets not forget the Navy's AEGIS TMD program that will in effect
allow us to move a 24/7 system off the coastline of virtually
everywhere in weeks.

[Vympel]

Even if SDI is just 50% effective on an all out volley,
that's half of a nuclear strike plan that won't be getting through.

What do you mean? It depends on the number of interceptors versus the number of warheads. With a piddly 150 interceptors, that's about ... 5% of the warehads Russia can fire, for example. Assuming 50% effectiveness.

You are no longer assured of target destruction in 30 minutes, which
really throws a huge kink into warplanning.

All that's required is sufficient warheads to overwhelm the system.

Oh yes! Lets polish our missile bodies to a shiny mirrory polish so that they'll reflect space based lasers!

Don't exist, not in development.

Or the fun fact that having to put counter
measures onto what was a previously uninterceptable system will reduce
the warhead throw weight.

You're mixing up your terms- missile throw weight that could go towards more warheads will instead go to decoys; if the attacker even thinks its necessary, that is. If they have a few hundred warheads, that's sufficient to deter attack.

NMD isn't just interceptors sitting in some icy base in Alaska, it's
also an orbiting Boeing 747 outfitted with a laser to shoot down
missiles in their boost phase over the bad guy's territory.

ABL is designed to shoot down theatre ballistic missiles, not ICBMs.

Lets not forget the Navy's AEGIS TMD program that will in effect
allow us to move a 24/7 system off the coastline of virtually
everywhere in weeks.

Theatre missile, not ICBM.

[Patrick Degan]

Keep telling yourself that.

Even if SDI is just 50% effective on an all out volley, that's half of a nuclear strike plan that won't be getting through.

So, you're saying that it's a victory if only 500 warheads get through rather than a thousand. Do enlighten us on how the country is less destroyed, please.

You are no longer assured of target destruction in 30 minutes, which really throws a huge kink into warplanning.

No, your offense simply has an additional hurdle to clear, which is far less difficult than you fantasise.

Yes. Mainly of the "what will the enemy throw at us to overwhelm or circumvent the system" variety.

Oh yes! Lets polish our missile bodies to a shiny mirrory polish so that they'll reflect space based lasers!

Pity the space-based lasers are even more of a pipe-dream than the Death Star.

Or the fun fact that having to put countermeasures onto what was a previously uninterceptable system will reduce the warhead throw weight.

Or you simply mix decoys in with the warhead barrage. It's cheaper to build more rockets than sophisticated battlestations.

NMD isn't just interceptors sitting in some icy base in Alaska, it's also an orbiting Boeing 747 outfitted with a laser to shoot down missiles in their boost phase over the bad guy's territory.

Except the plane-mounted laser is nowhere close to becoming reality either.

Lets not forget the Navy's AEGIS TMD program that will in effect allow us to move a 24/7 system off the coastline of virtually everywhere in weeks.

At least according to the sales pitch, and one which makes the great big assumption that an enemy seriously planning a nuclear strike on the United States will simply do nothing whatsoever to devise a counter for Maginot Mk II.

[MKSheppard]

So, you're saying that it's a victory if only 500 warheads get through rather than a thousand. Do enlighten us on how the country is less destroyed, please.

I see you don't understand the concept of strategic uncertainity. You're
no longer assured of actually killing the other side's assetss without
increasing the number of missiles being fired at each asset, which
reduces the number of targets you can strike, and also increases the
chance of a even stronger counter-attack.

It makes absolutely no sense, except in it's own twisted logical way,
but that's Nuclear War Planning for you.

No, your offense simply has an additional hurdle to clear, which is far less difficult than you fantasise.

So? Right now we have no capability of shooting down a ballistic
missile aimed at our country, we would either have to take the hit,
and kiss goodbye to a city, and/or wipe the offending nation off the
earth.

That was the entire reason Reagan launched SDI back in the 1980s,
to insure that we would never have to face that choice.

Pity the space-based lasers are even more of a pipe-dream than the Death Star.

Pity the fact that we've tested and are about to deploy battlefield lasers
that can shoot down artillery shells in flight and take up just 3 tractor
trailers currently.

Or you simply mix decoys in with the warhead barrage. It's cheaper to build more rockets than sophisticated battlestations.

Not if it's brilliant pebbles which was the epitome of cheeepness. And
besides more decoys = less warheads being thrown at the country.

Except the plane-mounted laser is nowhere close to becoming reality either.

Oh it isn't reality?

http://www.airbornelaser.com/news/2002/071802.html
The first YAL modified 747 was delivered in 2002.

Major laser components were delivered in 2003, and flight testing
with actual live fire shooting is scheduled for next year.

At least according to the sales pitch, and one which makes the great big assumption that an enemy seriously planning a nuclear strike on the United States will simply do nothing whatsoever to devise a counter for Maginot Mk II.

Wow, by your fucking logic, we should have abandoned tanks since they
were hopelessly vunerable to antiaircraft artillery, artillery, and 7.9mm
anti-tank rounds carried by oversized rifles in WWI.

Of COURSE there will be counters, it's the endless fucking race of
offense vs defense. And right now, who ever has a ballistic
missile has the upper hand, since he can destroy a city with
a success rate of 95%.

Israel has already deployed NMD using the Arrow 2 System, and was
pushing like hell to get a second battery of the Arrow 2 deployed before
the Iraqi war, with a third battery funded.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EI12Dh01.html

And the Japanese are agitating and moving towards NMD too, using
the US Navy's system to be deployed on their own fleet of AEGIS
ships.

I guess you better tell the Israelis and the Japanese that they're
pursuing a pipe dream too.

[MKSheppard]

I guess you better tell the Israelis and the Japanese that they're
pursuing a pipe dream too.

'course for them, their job is much easier than having to protect
an entire continent with a single site.

[MKSheppard]

'course for them, their job is much easier than having to protect
an entire continent with a single site.

Then again, a single site gets around the god damn NIMBYs who kept
delaying our various ABM systems.

"I don't want those evil missile launchers in that field a mile away!"

[MKSheppard]

Oh yes, Britain too is trying to get into the NMD program, with the
understanding that if they let us build radar sites in Britain, we will
give them the technology:

http://www.spacedaily.com/2002/02121717 ... t54ro.html

In his statement, [British Defense Secretary] Hoon said the British government believed that "the developing ballistic missile threat is one we must take seriously."

"We assess that at present there is no immediate significant threat to the territory of the United Kingdom from ballistic missiles," he said.

"However, intentions can change quickly, and the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles is continuing.

"We could not wait until a specific threat became clear before determining how to defend against it," Hoon added.

Smart, considering the long lead time required to set up such sites.

[phongn]

Because the interceptor targets the warhead, not the ICBM. The 7th Topol-M test-launch, back in 1999, saw the warhead peform an antimissile maneuver for the first time.

MARVs are hardly a new idea. The Chevaline MARV fitted to the UK's Polaris force also had various ways of maneuvering. For that matter, it's not like the ABM doesn't also have maneuvering fuel.

Some estimates say that it has more decoys and penetration aids than the far more massive Peacekeeper. It's throw-weight is suspicioulsly large for a mere 1-warhead weapon.

And therein virtual attrition bites you in the ass. One now has to field a greater number of more expensive missiles or accept the launch penalty and pack in fewer RVs onto the bus.

[phongn]

What do you mean? It depends on the number of interceptors versus the number of warheads. With a piddly 150 interceptors, that's about ... 5% of the warehads Russia can fire, for example. Assuming 50% effectiveness.

This is something of a strawman seeing as the US system is clearly not intended to defend agaisnt an al-out nuclear attack by Russia.

All that's required is sufficient warheads to overwhelm the system.

Assume, for a moment, that the US ABM system, with 150 warheads, has a pK of 0.33, for a probability of fifty intercepts. Lets further assume that there are 100 targets that absolutely must be destroyed in the first salvo, because you might not get a second salvo lofted. You must now launch fifty-one warheads for every target just to be assured of a kill.

That kind of virtual attrition leads to non-trivial increases in costs for the agressor.

[phongn]

'course for them, their job is much easier than having to protect
an entire continent with a single site.

Fortunately for us, there will be three sites, not one.

[phongn]

So, you're saying that it's a victory if only 500 warheads get through rather than a thousand. Do enlighten us on how the country is less destroyed, please.

Certainly. What's the distribution of warheads that have impacted? 500 surviving warheads is not a particularly large amount considering the sheer number of targets in CONUS alone. How many missile silos do we have? Railway marshalling yards? Bomber-capable airfields? There's more to nuclear warfare than simply saying "lets flatten all of their cities!" - and even that requires a fairly decent spread of missiles. How many millions might be saved if 500 RVs are shot down?

No, your offense simply has an additional hurdle to clear, which is far less difficult than you fantasise.

A rather expensive hurdle.

Or you simply mix decoys in with the warhead barrage. It's cheaper to build more rockets than sophisticated battlestations.

Decoys are countermeasures, so I don't see your point here. Decoys take up valuable space and payload mass on a booster.

Except the plane-mounted laser is nowhere close to becoming reality either.

Pity there is going to be a live-fire test next year, yes?

At least according to the sales pitch, and one which makes the great big assumption that an enemy seriously planning a nuclear strike on the United States will simply do nothing whatsoever to devise a counter for Maginot Mk II.

Of course other countries will attempt to devise counters to ABM, that's entirely expected. And the US will then devise counters to those counters and so on.

[MKSheppard]

You must now launch fifty-one warheads for every target just to be assured of a kill.

Thank you. Not exactly "overwhelming" the system, eh Deegan? It really
sucks when in order to kill a single target, you have to launch multiple ICBMs
against it.

[phongn]

Can someone explain the logic of NMD to me again? Defense against who?

By that logic, why does Russia maintain a large air-defense system? Who's going to go to war with them?

And NMD buys time for the 'accidential launch' scenario. Right now we have what, 20-30 minutes to decide whether to push the button - which is really our only response should it be "real?" NMD buys time to decide if that launch was misidentified, or was accidentially fired, or if it's a precursor to the Real Thing. That's a valuable capability.

[Patrick Degan]

I see you don't understand the concept of strategic uncertainity. You're no longer assured of actually killing the other side's assetss without increasing the number of missiles being fired at each asset, which reduces the number of targets you can strike, and also increases the chance of a even stronger counter-attack.

I understand the concept quite well —moreso than your childish notion of it. You don't seem to understand how fragile a modern industrial society actually is and how little disruption it can actually withstand before it would cease to exist as a contiguous political and economic unit.

No, your offense simply has an additional hurdle to clear, which is far less difficult than you fantasise.

So? Right now we have no capability of shooting down a ballistic missile aimed at our country, we would either have to take the hit, and kiss goodbye to a city, and/or wipe the offending nation off the earth.

That was the entire reason Reagan launched SDI back in the 1980s, to insure that we would never have to face that choice.

We're not talking about Ronald Reagan's fantasies either. And the scenario of facing a single rogue ICBM is even more ludicrous than the idea of the Perfect Missile Shield.

Pity the space-based lasers are even more of a pipe-dream than the Death Star.

Pity the fact that we've tested and are about to deploy battlefield lasers that can shoot down artillery shells in flight and take up just 3 tractor trailers currently.

You mean THEL? Better check back on that one. THEL is having serious development problems, so much so that the Israelis have twice delayed deployment schedules for the system. And a "mobile" version which presently requires three semitrailers to haul around the chemical fuel for the thing is hardly a practical battlefield weapon. And even if they do get this thing working as advertised, a weapon with an effective range of less than 500 metres will be useless as an anti-ICBM defence.

Or you simply mix decoys in with the warhead barrage. It's cheaper to build more rockets than sophisticated battlestations.

Not if it's brilliant pebbles which was the epitome of cheeepness.

Sorry, but Edward Teller's Brilliant Pebbles pipedream went down the sinkhole even faster than his X-ray laser did, more than a decade ago.

And besides more decoys = less warheads being thrown at the country.

Or they simply build —and launch— more rockets, with more decoys and warheads. That's the equation which an enemy would formulate.

Except the plane-mounted laser is nowhere close to becoming reality either.

Oh it isn't reality?

http://www.airbornelaser.com/news/2002/071802.html
The first YAL modified 747 was delivered in 2002.

Major laser components were delivered in 2003, and flight testing with actual live fire shooting is scheduled for next year.

The testbed platform for a wholly unproven system has been delivered and this supports your argument how, exactly...?

At least according to the sales pitch, and one which makes the great big assumption that an enemy seriously planning a nuclear strike on the United States will simply do nothing whatsoever to devise a counter for Maginot Mk II.

Wow, by your fucking logic, we should have abandoned tanks since they were hopelessly vunerable to antiaircraft artillery, artillery, and 7.9mm anti-tank rounds carried by oversized rifles in WWI.

Strawman fallacy, and a particularly silly one at that.

Israel has already deployed NMD using the Arrow 2 System, and was pushing like hell to get a second battery of the Arrow 2 deployed before the Iraqi war, with a third battery funded.

You seriously cannot be proposing that a theatre missile system and an anti-ICBM defence are remotely the same thing.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EI12Dh01.html

And the Japanese are agitating and moving towards NMD too, using the US Navy's system to be deployed on their own fleet of AEGIS ships.

I guess you better tell the Israelis and the Japanese that they're pursuing a pipe dream too.

Non-sequitor, since neither nation is facing the sort of ICBM threat the United States would be, and also that the AEGIS theatre system is not designed to counter said threat.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because the interceptor targets the warhead, not the ICBM. The 7th Topol-M test-launch, back in 1999, saw the warhead peform an antimissile maneuver for the first time. Some estimates say that it has more decoys and penetration aids than the far more massive Peacekeeper. It's throw-weight is suspicioulsly large for a mere 1-warhead weapon.

Decoys don't work, the probules involved with separating them from the real warheads where solved decades ago. Of course most decoys don't work period. They're a video floating around of an ICBM attempting to deploy inflatable decoys, which all of which got stuck on the warhead.

Won't last long- when the DF-5s are replaced by DF-31s and DF-41s, it'll take far less than a hundred, MIRVd, to re-establish China's minimum deterrent force.

All of which will cost far more then building more interceptors.